| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Davio
Development Team Member
Jamaica
12217 Posts |
 Posted - 02 March 2005 : 10:04:44
|
| I would think he knows what he is talking about, but the bottom line is, we want the link back to the snitz forums. |
Support Snitz Forums
|
 |
|
|
xyzzy
Starting Member
Italy
17 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2005 : 10:30:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Davio
I would think he knows what he is talking about, but the bottom line is, we want the link back to the snitz forums.
Then the GPL is definitely not the license you want. Moreover, any license you may come up with that forces the users to have these links back will be, by necessity, GPL-incompatible.
Cheers,
xyzzy
|
|
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
|
|
Podge
Support Moderator
Ireland
3775 Posts |
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20579 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2005 : 10:50:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by xyzzy
quote:
Originally posted by Davio
I would think he knows what he is talking about, but the bottom line is, we want the link back to the snitz forums.
Then the GPL is definitely not the license you want. Moreover, any license you may come up with that forces the users to have these links back will be, by necessity, GPL-incompatible.
Cheers,
xyzzy
Actually, you are again wrong on this, there is a version of the GPL which is being used as the prototype for GPL v3, it explicitly covers this area and forbids you from removing the link back to Snitz. It is the AGPL license |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20579 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2005 : 10:51:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Podge
This is a presentation which David Turner gave last year - http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/
This is the interesting bit - http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-38.html and it refers to phpNuke's notice at the bottom.
quote:
Notices must be "printed or displayed"
But you're welcome to print them thus:
<--
Copyright 2003, Roger Pollack
This program is free software; you can ...
-->
Snitz does something similar to that in inc_header.asp but the link back is not considered compliant with section 2(c) of the GPL. Thats my understanding anyway.
For future releases, one solution could be to do something like Affero have done with the GPL - http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
i.e. Create SnitzGPL and add a section 2(d) which would cover the notices in inc_header.asp & inc_Footer.asp & distribute Snitz under the terms of the SnitzGPL.
GPL v3 is going to be basically the AGPL |
|
|
|
xyzzy
Starting Member
Italy
17 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2005 : 10:54:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by RichardKinser
quote:
Originally posted by xyzzy
There is a third option, that is the one I will follow: I will use your forum under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at my option) any later version. I am grateful for your contribution to the free software movement and I will express my appreciation in the way I will decide is best for my purposes (definitely _not_ by means of a pervasive Powered By Logo/Text link).
Best regards,
xyzzy
There is no other option. Either use the forum with the Powered By Logo/Text link in place, or you aren't going to use our forum. Simple as that.
You are not trying to intimidate me, are you?
I suggest a simple reality check before you sue me.
See you in court.
Bye,
xyzzy
|
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20579 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2005 : 10:56:32
|
Mr Turner also makes a very odd assumption about web usage
quote:
Startup in "the most ordinary way" means the front page
This is not the case with web sites which is why notices are displayed on every page, I have never visited the home page of this site in all the time I have been involved with it, so therfore everypage is a startup page |
|
|
|
xyzzy
Starting Member
Italy
17 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2005 : 11:07:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by HuwR
quote:
Originally posted by xyzzy
quote:
Originally posted by Davio
I would think he knows what he is talking about, but the bottom line is, we want the link back to the snitz forums.
Then the GPL is definitely not the license you want. Moreover, any license you may come up with that forces the users to have these links back will be, by necessity, GPL-incompatible.
Cheers,
xyzzy
Actually, you are again wrong on this, there is a version of the GPL which is being used as the prototype for GPL v3, it explicitly covers this area and forbids you from removing the link back to Snitz. It is the AGPL license
Actually, I am again right on this: the Affero General Public License is declared to be incompatible with the only GPL that is in existence today: see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Moreover, GPL Version 3 is not for tomorrow, so you can expect the AGPL to be GPL incompatible for some time.
Furthermore, if you think that the AGPL "forbids you from removing the link back to Snitz" you should probably think again.
Cheers,
xyzzy
|
Edited by - xyzzy on 02 March 2005 12:23:13 |
|
|
|
muzishun
Senior Member
United States
1079 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2005 : 16:32:17
|
It seems to me that you're making quite a fuss over a small issue. The easiest thing to do is use a simple text link. You can change that in the Admin section of the forums. As HuwR said, many people have spent thousands of hours developing this, and the software, regardless of how much you change the code, is still Snitz. As such, you should follow the license that they specified for the software, instead of nitpicking about a few lines of code.
I can just about guarantee that you'll eventually want to be adding mods to your code (I don't think I've seen an unmodded forum yet). However, you'll find help and advice in extremely short supply with your rude comments. It's not worth picking a fight over. Just leave the link and get on with the more important things in your life. You sound like an intelligent person, and it just doesn't seem fitting for anyone to be so bent out of shape over a text link at the bottom of the page. |
Bill Parrott
Senior Web Programmer, University of Kansas
Co-Owner and Code Monkey, Eternal Second Designs (www.eternalsecond.com)
Personal Website (www.chimericdream.com) |
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2005 : 22:59:37
|
xyzzy, If you don't want to abide by the conditions you agreed to when you downloaded Snitz, I suggest you either a) ask for a refund, or b) follow the same path I did when I didn't want a link on my pages: I wrote my own code and didn't use Snitz, because I respect the wishes of the developers of the Snitz software.
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
|
|
|
Jorrit787
Average Member
Netherlands
681 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2005 : 00:52:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by xyzzy
Furthermore, if you think that the AGPL "forbids you from removing the link back to Snitz" you should probably think again.
If, in your opinion, the GPL doesn't cover the lines of code that have been mentioned, then consider it a condition set forth by the creators and copyrighters of the code. If I loaned you my blue BWM and you painted it black I would obviously do something about that. |
eXtremeGossip  |
|
|
|
xyzzy
Starting Member
Italy
17 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2005 : 08:35:47
|
Guys, with all due respect, I really think you desperately need to talk to someone who has some familiarity with licensing issues.
Since some of you seem to take this too personally, I would like to stop this discussion as soon as possible, also because I already have the answers I was looking for. But please, do yourself a favor: consider that, up to now, you have released your beautiful software under the GPL and that the legal value of any other notice you have added is nil. There is no way you can fix this for past releases: they are covered by the GPL. If that is not what you want, then decide which license fits your needs and then stick to it more seriously: then the future releases will be exactly as you want them.
Another thing: I am contributing to the Free Software movement since 1987 and I release all my code under the GPL, as many thousands of other developers. Releasing under the GPL is a choice like many possible others: you do not make that choice if this is not what you want. I don't want to force users of my software to put links to my web sites, or to send me nice postcards, or to throw salt over their shoulders whenever they use my code: so for me the GPL is perfectly OK and I am fully conscious of all the rights over my code I am giving away. What you are doing, with your GPL'd code containing mentions to additional legally-invalid constraints, is spreading confusion. You are giving others, many others, the false impression that the GPL allows what it most definitely does not allow. I have observed this two levels down from you: there is site X that distributes a modified version of your forum that has taken the confusion further by adding more constraints and one more site to link back to. Then I participate to a forum that uses software Y that was derived from X, which has yet more constraints and another site to link back to. Both X and Y web sites claim they distribute free software under the GPL. Which is true, but the legally-invalid additional constraints only create confusion among users and developers.
To summarize: if you are tempted to say that I am going to damage you by using your software under the license it was distributed with (GPL 2 or, at my option, any further version of GPL), then I will propose you an alternative point of view. That is the one that you are damaging me and thousands of other developers in the Free Software movement by spreading confusion about the most important license we have. So, please, stop it: choose the license you want, make this choice unambiguous and do not spread misinformation about licensing issues you clearly do not have the faintest clue about.
Thanks for your attention,
xyzzy
|
|
|
|
MarcelG
Retired Support Moderator
Netherlands
2625 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2005 : 09:01:18
|
Well, I don't want to stir up the discussion even more, but I have to agree with xyzzy ; if the GPL forbids these constrains, the Snitz community should remove them from the agreement, OR loose the GPL.
Let me put it this way:
IF GPLForbidsLinkBackConstraint = true THEN
SET SnitzLoosesGPL = true
OR
SET SnitzLoosesLinkBackConstraint = true
ELSE
ALotOfFussAboutNothing = true
END IF
So, if we determine the value of GPLForbidsLinkBackConstraint we know what to do next. |
portfolio - linkshrinker - oxle - twitter |
Edited by - MarcelG on 03 March 2005 11:07:29 |
|
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2005 : 09:08:04
|
xyzzy,
You sound pretty much convinced about the fact that the code change restrictions in the Snitz code are invalid. I, for one, am not so sure, since your FSF expert contradicted himself over two similar pieces of code. Why don't you go and ask him about this contradiction? I guess the conclusion he drew without being confronted with his own contradiction over BB software suits you more, right?
You know, even software that's not released under the GPL is pirated these days, so pirating Snitz can be done as well. It's just a matter of conscience for people who use the software developed by others, whether to agree on the developer's conditions to provide the software or not. So, in spite of all the legal jargon, the boundaries are pretty clear to me. |
Snitz 3.4 Readme | Like the support? Support Snitz too |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
